Any updates, or opinions on this witness.

[Darryl Kenyon]

As to one of your points, Hutchinson claimed to see Astrachan on Friday morning, yes in poor light we may assume.
However, he also added that he thinks he saw him on Sunday morning, presumably in better light.
So he wasn't trying to recollect a description over three days, but over perhaps 36? hours, from Sunday morning to when he walked into Commercial St. Station Monday evening.

.

Sorry Wick I am struggling with this. If he thinks he saw him on Sunday morning and describing his facial appearance say, from then 36 hrs. he could be describing the wrong man. And if he was wearing the exact same clothes as Friday Morning he would, I assume know it was the same man. and if he wasn't wearing the same attire he is describing the horseshoe pin etc from three days ago.

[barnflatwyngarde]

Christer Holmgren wrote a very good article for "The Casebook Examiner", (Issue 5, December 2010) called "The Man Who Wasn't There", in which he makes a very reasoned and persuasive case that Hutchinson did not in fact see Mary and Astrakhan man when he said he did.

Hutchinson simply got the date wrong.

You can get the relevant issue, and others on the Casebook link below.

https://forum.casebook.org/showthread.php?t=10127

[Simon Wood]

All these people supposedly getting the time wrong—Mrs Long—and the day wrong—Mrs Maxwell and now Hutchinson—is getting tiresome.

It's lazy thinking, sweeping possibilities under the carpet and going belly up to the idea that the Whitechapel murders happened in exactly the way we have been told.

Move along. Nothing to see here, except what we've been led to believe.

Among many others, some important questions are, what if Mrs Long was telling the truth about the brewery clock; what if there were blood splats in the hallway of 29 Hanbury Street; what if Mrs Maxwell was telling the truth about seeing Kelly; what if George Hutchinson and his music hall Jew, Mr. Astrakhan, were a tactical invention; why did John Kelly tell so many lies? Why did Sarah Lewis appear at the Kelly inquest instead of Mrs. Kennedy? Why was Abberline so silent on the subject for twenty five years?

The questions go on and on. What are the implications? How do all these inconsistencies fit together? Or are we doomed to trudge the same weary path to nowhere we have been on for the past 130 years?

Is this really the best we can do?

It's time to dig really deep and start thinking the unthinkable.

[DJA]

Once you realize who Jack the Ripper was and the reasons for the cover up,things fall neatly into place.

[Wickerman]

Jon,
I am not relying on assumption.We have at least two statements from Hutchinson describing his movemants and observations,which are pretty much detailed.
It is a belief of mine that he might be lying,not an assumption.It is based on personnel experience,and conclusive testing under controlled conditions,as to how good a persons recollections are.

Assuming all "persons" are the same?
Happily, we know some are more observant than others.
How does that affect your test?

The Sunday supposed sighting is conclusive of nothin,but if his Monday statement of being able to identify the person he saw with Kelly,in his (Hutchinsonn)words,"Can be identified",then why was he unsure the day before?

If he didn't feel sure he could identify the man again he wouldn't have agreed to go out with officers looking for him.
"Can be identified" is typical of police terminology, likely Badham's conclusion.
In fact that whole paragraph of description detail will belong to Badham. It is given there in typical police format.

A groom is no more likely than a person in any other occupoation to pay attention to detail,

You apparently do not know the duties of a groom.

...but tell me,what are the small details they have to pay attention to?,and can you prove Hutchinson was a groom?

There is no point in theorizing on speculation.

[Scott Nelson]

There is no point in theorizing on speculation.

But we do it all the time.

[Simon Wood]

"Once you realize who Jack the Ripper was and the reasons for the cover up, things fall neatly into place."

They do?

[Sam Flynn]

You apparently do not know the duties of a groom.

Whichever kind of groom one refers to, none of their duties strike me as requiring good night vision or a photographic and durable memory.

[Wickerman]

Sorry Wick I am struggling with this. If he thinks he saw him on Sunday morning and describing his facial appearance say, from then 36 hrs. he could be describing the wrong man. And if he was wearing the exact same clothes as Friday Morning he would, I assume know it was the same man. and if he wasn't wearing the same attire he is describing the horseshoe pin etc from three days ago.

We cannot guess why he "was not certain" on Sunday morning. Something about the way he was dressed, or he only saw him at a distance?
He did say....
"I could swear to the man anywhere", and "I believe that he lives in the neighborhood,..."

If he knew him by sight, as seems to be implied, then he already knew some of those details. Some theorists treat this like it was the first time he had seen Astrachan, but apparently it wasn't.
The way a person dressed was part of their ID in those days, generally they didn't have a wide range of clothing to choose from.

[Wickerman]

Whichever kind of groom one refers to, none of their duties strike me as requiring good night vision or a photographic and durable memory.

Correct, and none of that was necessary.

[DJA]

Would be valued qualities in a sailor though.

[DJA]

"Once you realize who Jack the Ripper was and the reasons for the cover up, things fall neatly into place."

They do?

Yep.

Posted a "fair" amount,if you wish to go over it.

Actually one of the first things I did upon joining was to offer you most of that information,yet you declined.

[Simon Wood]

I did?

Wanna send me a PM?

Regards,

Simon

[Sam Flynn]

Would be valued qualities in a sailor though.

The good night vision might come in handy, but the photographic and durable memory would be rather surplus to requirements, however.

[Sam Flynn]

Correct, and none of that was necessary.

Really? Good night vision and a durable photographic memory would not be necessary to make multiple detailed observations under low lighting conditions, and to be able to remember the minutiæ three days later?

Don't think you're right there, Jon.